April L Risinger1, Nicholas F Dybdal-Hargreaves1, Susan L Mooberry2. 1. Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Therapy & Research Center, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, U.S.A. 2. Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Therapy & Research Center, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, U.S.A. Mooberry@uthscsa.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microtubule-targeting agents (MTAs) are a mainstay in breast cancer treatment, yet patient responses differ. The underlying mechanisms of these differences are unknown. While MTAs are mitotic inhibitors, recent evidence highlights that non-mitotic effects of these drugs can contribute to their anticancer effects. It is critical to identify the non-mitotic mechanisms that could contribute to differences among MTAs. However, it is not clear whether rapidly dividing cells in culture are optimal tools to address these mechanistic questions in interphase cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Detailed concentration response curves for five MTAs in a panel of diverse breast cancer cell lines were generated. RESULTS: Substantial differences among both drugs and cell lines, consistent with the clinical scenario, were observed. Importantly, these differences do not correlate with cell doubling time. CONCLUSION: The interphase actions of MTAs are critical to the full spectrum of their effects in cancer cells, even in cell culture models. Copyright
BACKGROUND: Microtubule-targeting agents (MTAs) are a mainstay in breast cancer treatment, yet patient responses differ. The underlying mechanisms of these differences are unknown. While MTAs are mitotic inhibitors, recent evidence highlights that non-mitotic effects of these drugs can contribute to their anticancer effects. It is critical to identify the non-mitotic mechanisms that could contribute to differences among MTAs. However, it is not clear whether rapidly dividing cells in culture are optimal tools to address these mechanistic questions in interphase cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Detailed concentration response curves for five MTAs in a panel of diverse breast cancer cell lines were generated. RESULTS: Substantial differences among both drugs and cell lines, consistent with the clinical scenario, were observed. Importantly, these differences do not correlate with cell doubling time. CONCLUSION: The interphase actions of MTAs are critical to the full spectrum of their effects in cancer cells, even in cell culture models. Copyright
Authors: Brian D Lehmann; Joshua A Bauer; Xi Chen; Melinda E Sanders; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Yu Shyr; Jennifer A Pietenpol Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Donnette A Dabydeen; James C Burnett; Ruoli Bai; Pascal Verdier-Pinard; Sarah J H Hickford; George R Pettit; John W Blunt; Murray H G Munro; Rick Gussio; Ernest Hamel Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 2006-08-29 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: P Skehan; R Storeng; D Scudiero; A Monks; J McMahon; D Vistica; J T Warren; H Bokesch; S Kenney; M R Boyd Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1990-07-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Deepak R Chittajallu; Stefan Florian; Rainer H Kohler; Yoshiko Iwamoto; James D Orth; Ralph Weissleder; Gaudenz Danuser; Timothy J Mitchison Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Leila Takahashi-Ruiz; Joseph D Morris; Phillip Crews; Tyler A Johnson; April L Risinger Journal: Molecules Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 4.927
Authors: Nicholas A Clanton; Shayne D Hastings; Griffin B Foultz; Julie A Contreras; Samantha S Yee; Hadi D Arman; April L Risinger; Doug E Frantz Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 4.632
Authors: Stefanie Chan; Emma Smith; Yuan Gao; Julian Kwan; Benjamin C Blum; Andrew M Tilston-Lunel; Isabella Turcinovic; Xaralabos Varelas; Maria Dafne Cardamone; Stefano Monti; Andrew Emili; Valentina Perissi Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2021-01-07
Authors: Sara Vaz; Fábio J Ferreira; Joana C Macedo; Gil Leor; Uri Ben-David; José Bessa; Elsa Logarinho Journal: Cell Death Dis Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 8.469